Yes and yes. whether or not they come in waves of popularity doesn’t mean they serve the same areas, in regard to rendering technology.
Faster is always better, but better quality is also always better, so the balancing act is ongoing.
ha ha, far from it. It’s a place with probably much higher numbers of british and american and chinese millionaires living in gated communities than most of that screenshot. We are on the list tho, around the middle.
and one of my renders on an old macbook went from 60 seconds per frame to 3 seconds per frame
2 Likes
While searching for cycles x vs (place your favorite commercial renderer here) - didn’t find anything btw - I came across this 1 minute test comparing EEVEE vs Cycles vs Cycles X viewport performance. 
12 Likes
Would be fun to see render comparison to Redshift & Octane. I have tried them both, and old cycles wasnt that much slower to be honest, so i think cycles x have a pretty big shot at beating them both.
1 Like
For Eevee need to turn on AO with a large radius
1 Like
This is most empty discussion I see all over my life. This is like compare apple vs. pear. Eevee and Cycles, they are different engines and uses for different purposes and necessaries.
4 Likes
Then you’ll be happy to learn that I am moving to Houdini, which is what I use at work, so you won’t see any more of these, at least not from me! 
One of the reason I am making the move is the community, any negative thinking towards Blender is seen as a personal attack, wake-up people, this is just a piece of software, stop making a religion out of it, this is one of the things that makes most of the CG community mock Blender!
Another reason is the limitations in Blender, so many of those, none of these exists in Houdini, so the sky is the limit now!
I wish you all a happy blending, it was a fun ride for the last 5-6 years! 
I wish you good work.
1 Like
Just use what works best
1 Like
I personally love both engines but the biggest drawback of Eevee is that it is bound by the GPU memory and GPUs with large memory capacity are still very very expensive. Cycles still will be needed for large scale projects. Another thing is that running Cycles on the cloud for large rendering projects is much easier than trying to run Eevee on the cloud clusters.
Cycles is a general purpose renderer and it runs on any pc with a cpu unlike Eevee which needs a decent GPU. Given these facts, it makes sense that BF is focusing on improving Cycles.
2 Likes
Sorry to disagree. It’s too easy to charge “the community” of bad habits and mood, when the vast majority of people just disagree with what has been said. I think this is taking it personally. And come on, how can one change a software “because of the community”?
Anyway, peace. And keep making art, with whatever application you like
2 Likes
I did say one of the reasons, have I not, and it is true, the attitude of many Blender users on social media whenever someone says anything they don’t like about Blender is less than stellar, to say the least, many Blender users seem to have a sentimental attachment to the software, which is bad politics, you use the software that does the job, at least when it’s your bread and butter you do, at work we made the switch from Maya to Houdini about 3 years ago, because Houdini was the right tool at the time, no one shed a tear about ditching Maya, well, except our TD’s, maybe!
Why is the entire game industry moving to raytracing over rasterization? Why should blender go in the opposite direction?? Trying to convert eevee to a raytracer goes against everything eevee was designed to be.
3 Likes
That is exactly the question I asked, why put so many resources to make Cycles somewhat faster, instead of implementing Ray-tracing into Eevee and have blazing fast ray traced images?
I don’t think you understand. Raytracing IS the slow part, so why would you add it to eevee the real time raster renderer when you can just optimize your preexisting path tracer to be as fast as possible? adding the complexity to eevee doesnt make sense because it wont result in renders as good as cycles anyways. A workflow that mixes cycles and eevee makes a lot more sense which is kind of how raytracing in games work in the first place. They have the raster level which does a lot of basic work and they basically put a raytracing filter over top of it (kinda). But to get final render quality you still need to render more than a few milliseconds like a game does
9 Likes
Maybe this will help. Even with the addition of ray tracing to Eevee, it wouldn’t overcome all of these issues.
https://cgcookie.com/articles/blender-cycles-vs-eevee-15-limitations-of-real-time-rendering
2 Likes
Take it from someone who has been deeply embedded in the Houdini community for the past four years – you’re in for a rough ride! There is a different type of religion with the Houdini bunch which IMHO can be much more difficult to take, and that is that if you’re not down with VEX you’re probably not smart enough to use Houdini in the first place.
Personally I find Blender and Houdini quite complementary actually, there is very little overlap between the two apps – what one does brilliantly the other does poorly and vice versa. At the moment I intend to use both, at least until Blender can catch up with some of the shortcomings it currently has, and I would recommend that you consider doing the same as you will quickly find out that the grass is not particularly greener on the other side.
6 Likes
Because none of the RT engines gives such photorealism as Path Trace engines, no matter how good they are, have they Ray-tracing or not. It will take at least next decade to achieve the same quality, until that, people still will use PT renderers.
There is nothing to discuss, you just not interested in photorealism, and trying to spiculate with your opinion, that’s all.
Just for example take a look at UE4 animation vs Corona renders. Pay attention at fabrics, reflections, translucent materials etc.
1 Like
I never said Eevee is a replacement or that it even should be a replacement for Cycles, what I am saying is that Eevee, with ray-traing, would suffice for the vast majority of Blender users who just need to render high quality images in the fastest way possible, and that’s Eevee, not Cycles, to render an animation with Cycles require a huge amount of time, or it requires a render farm, which is beyond most Blender users grasp!
Like I said, 70% of Blender’s funding comes from corporations, I find it hard to believe that this doesn’t impact Blender development in any way, despite what Ton said, and my original question was about the possibility that maybe, the BI choose not to implement RT in Eevee not to compete directly with Unreal, since the biggest amount of funding comes from Epic, I still think that this is a relevant question that deserves to be asked!